Hacker news is not debate club. > Just look at the 2(!) meta-studies that led to an estimated range of 3.7 to 110 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kW

Hacker news is not debate club. > Just look at the 2(!) meta-studies that led to an estimated range of 3.7 to 110 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in IPCCs AR5 2014. Are you referring to carbon emissions from building nuclear plants, or something else? If you're referring to emissions from building nuclear plants, well, the people who installed my solar panels pulled up in an ICE van. (Either way, I have no interest in figuring out what the carbon emissions of nuclear fission or photovoltaic solar panels are; nor am I going to entertain an argument that holding two pellets of uranium together somehow emits carbon.) > That means they avoid ramp up and downs? Yes, emphatically yes. This is very old technology, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Swamp_Hydroelectric_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Swamp_Hydroelectric_Power... > Construction started ... was completed in 1974. New England Power Company developed Bear Swamp with the intention of absorbing and storing some of the excess electrical power from the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station which was located nearby... Bear Swamp continues operate by absorbing electrical power from the grid and later returning electrical power to the grid. Today, it's used to absorb excess solar production in MA. It's also really cool. I toured it as a teenager. If you want more modern technology you could pair a nuclear plant with Tesla megapacks. You seem to be more motivated to study that feasibility than I am, though.